Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Clerk of Court
No. 08-6238
(D.C. No. 5:07-CV-00387-WFD)
(W.D. Okla.)
-2-
-3-
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of
this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is
therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is
not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata,
and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value
consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
-4-
Naomi A. Stinson appeals pro se the district courts dismissal of her action
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1291,
we affirm.
Ms. Stinson filed an amended complaint against 123 defendants, purporting
to allege causes of action under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. 1964(c), and 42 U.S.C. 1983. She
alleged in her amended complaint that all of the defendants were members of a
syndicate of organized crime. She further stated that:
[a]fter picking a convenient target, [David] Russell and the
others will surreptitiously contact the target, then knowingly utter
false evidence of indebtedness to the target with the intent to deceive
the person and extort money and property from them. Documents
used by Russell and co-conspirators are purported by Russell and
Russells co-conspirators to be genuine but are not because they have
been falsely made or manufactured in their entirety.
R., Doc. 6 at 6. Ms. Stinson thereafter asserted that defendant Russell, on
specified dates, uttered false documents constituting manufactured evidence of
indebtedness through the United States mail. She also accused defendants Robert
Barr, E. Edd Pritchett, Susie Pritchett, Bryan Slabotsky, Douglas Jackson, and
Ronald Franklin of aiding and abetting Russells scam. Id. at 7. 1
(...continued)
District of Oklahoma and one of the defendants in this case, entered judgment in
favor of the United States. Land belonging to the Stinsons was subsequently sold.
When Mr. Stinson failed to vacate that property, state-court criminal proceedings
were brought against him. Many of the defendants in this action were involved in
the prior court proceedings involving the Stinsons. See R., Doc. 73 at 1-2.
2
-7-
the defendants failed to rebut her sworn testimony. Finally, Ms. Stinson contends
that the district court should have afforded her an opportunity to replead. 3
Plaintiffs first contention is without merit. The district court construed her
amended complaint to allege RICO fraud-based violations. 4 She points to nothing
in that pleading that would support a claim based upon her husbands alleged
false arrest or false imprisonment, nor do we find any such allegations in the
amended complaint. Ms. Stinson protests in her reply brief that her amended
complaint incorporated all of the allegations from her original complaint. But
even if an incorporation by reference in an amended complaint were sufficient to
carry through allegations included in an earlier pleading, we can identify no such
allegations in her original complaint.
Regarding the district courts dismissal of her RICO claims, Ms. Stinson
completely ignores the heightened pleading standard applicable to fraud claims
under Rule 9(b). Moreover, her contention that dismissal was improper because
none of the defendants rebutted her sworn testimony, Aplt. Opening Br. at 18,
3
Ms. Stinson does not challenge in her opening appeal brief the district
courts construction of her RICO claims, its holding that she failed to allege facts
with particularly in support of her fraud claims, or its holding regarding absolute
immunity as applicable to some of the defendants. As such, we deem those issues
waived. See Bronson v. Swensen, 500 F.3d 1099, 1104 (10th Cir. 2007) (holding
omission of issue in opening brief generally forfeits appellate consideration of
that issue).
4
pleadings that failed to cure the deficiencies in his claims). Ms. Stinson identifies
no basis for this court to conclude that the district court abused its discretion in
dismissing her amended complaint with prejudice.
We AFFIRM the district courts dismissal of plaintiffs claims under
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) on the bases stated in the district courts dismissal order
dated September 30, 2008. See R., Doc. 88. We DENY Ms. Stinsons motion to
proceed in forma pauperis on appeal and remind plaintiff that she is responsible
for the immediate payment of any unpaid balance of the appellate filing fee.
John C. Porfilio
Circuit Judge
-10-